Fossil Fuel Subsidies More Than Double Those for Renewables - Renewable Energy World: "The largest U.S subsidies to fossil fuels are attributed to tax breaks that aid foreign oil production, according to research from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). The study, which reviewed fossil fuel and energy subsidies for Fiscal Years 2002-2008, revealed that the lion's share of energy subsidies supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases.
The research demonstrates that the federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Fossil fuels benefited from approximately US $72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion."
Monday, November 2, 2009
Energy Tribune- Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making
Energy Tribune- Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making: "Here’s a bit of unalloyed pessimism for you: Carbon capture and sequestration, more widely known as clean coal technology, is not going to work out. Governments and the coal industry are trying to bite off too much at once.
In theory, clean coal is a fine idea. The process of burning coal releases gases, which all modern plants already “scrub” of harmful substances like sulfur dioxide. To fight global warming, coal mine and plant owners want to do the same for carbon dioxide.
Sounds great, except that a fairly average-sized 1,500 megawatt coal plant produces about three billion tons of CO2 yearly. All that CO2 has to be separated out, a process that uses up a lot of the energy the plant produces. Then, according to current thinking, we must bury the CO2 and hope that it doesn’t come back up.
That’s a hell of a challenge. A report released Thursday by the pro-CCS Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute helps outline just how much. A few bullet-points:
* Clean coal research is currently moribund; only seven CCS projects exist today, and all are attached to gas plants
* The GCCSSI expects national governments to coordinate to give $100 billion yearly to CCS research
* Provided the money is forked over immediately, we might have 20 plants by 2020
* And if those initial plants work out as expected it will take until 2030 to have a significant number operating
* If the technology works as expected, it will add an average of 78 percent to the cost of electricity from coal
Anyone familiar with the basics of risk wouldn’t bet on that many “ifs”, especially given the looming difficulty of not only coaxing governments to throw trillions of dollars into research, but also share the technology as it develops.
Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be over 500ppm. That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97 percent of climatologists who study climate change are right, that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.
In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency, and work onnew concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.
The $2.4 trillion the International Energy Agency says we should spend researching clean coal sould also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy several hundred nuclear plants.
If we do insist on clean coal, the concept needs a rethink. Trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to scrub CO2 is enough of a challenge. The additional problem of permanently sequestering it underground adds too much expense and uncertainty.
There are better ways. One would be to use the CO2 to create liquid fuels for transportation. Oddly, this idea is rarely brought up in the debate over clean coal, although scientists are already working on ways to use CO2 they captured from ambient air for fuel."
In theory, clean coal is a fine idea. The process of burning coal releases gases, which all modern plants already “scrub” of harmful substances like sulfur dioxide. To fight global warming, coal mine and plant owners want to do the same for carbon dioxide.
Sounds great, except that a fairly average-sized 1,500 megawatt coal plant produces about three billion tons of CO2 yearly. All that CO2 has to be separated out, a process that uses up a lot of the energy the plant produces. Then, according to current thinking, we must bury the CO2 and hope that it doesn’t come back up.
That’s a hell of a challenge. A report released Thursday by the pro-CCS Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute helps outline just how much. A few bullet-points:
* Clean coal research is currently moribund; only seven CCS projects exist today, and all are attached to gas plants
* The GCCSSI expects national governments to coordinate to give $100 billion yearly to CCS research
* Provided the money is forked over immediately, we might have 20 plants by 2020
* And if those initial plants work out as expected it will take until 2030 to have a significant number operating
* If the technology works as expected, it will add an average of 78 percent to the cost of electricity from coal
Anyone familiar with the basics of risk wouldn’t bet on that many “ifs”, especially given the looming difficulty of not only coaxing governments to throw trillions of dollars into research, but also share the technology as it develops.
Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be over 500ppm. That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97 percent of climatologists who study climate change are right, that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.
In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency, and work onnew concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.
The $2.4 trillion the International Energy Agency says we should spend researching clean coal sould also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy several hundred nuclear plants.
If we do insist on clean coal, the concept needs a rethink. Trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to scrub CO2 is enough of a challenge. The additional problem of permanently sequestering it underground adds too much expense and uncertainty.
There are better ways. One would be to use the CO2 to create liquid fuels for transportation. Oddly, this idea is rarely brought up in the debate over clean coal, although scientists are already working on ways to use CO2 they captured from ambient air for fuel."
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Ford's new electric chief offers glimpse of future projects -- chicagotribune.com
Ford's new electric chief offers glimpse of future projects -- chicagotribune.com: "Ford said it expects to manufacture as many as 2 million electric and gas-electric cars and trucks over the next decade to meet what it sees as increased consumer interest in the fuel-friendlier segment as oil prices push higher.
The battery-powered Focus will be built in Michigan on the same assembly lines that put together the traditional gas version, and it is slated to be released in 2011."
The battery-powered Focus will be built in Michigan on the same assembly lines that put together the traditional gas version, and it is slated to be released in 2011."
Future May Involve Getting Paid to Charge Your Plug-in Vehicle : Gas 2.0
Future May Involve Getting Paid to Charge Your Plug-in Vehicle : Gas 2.0: "They say that nothing is free, but I may have come across the exception. In West Texas and Illinois, electric customers are being paid to use electricity. With the growth of wind energy in areas like Texas, Iowa and Minnesota, electric companies are occasionally producing more energy—especially during off-peak hours—than they can use. Why not store it you ask? Because there are not yet any good ways to store energy; a quest since electricity was created.
According to expert Terry Boston, who is the CEO of PJM, a company that manages the electricity grid in 13 mid-Atlantic states and Washington, the oversupply of electricity has forced prices into the negative range. The result: some customers are paid to use electricity."
According to expert Terry Boston, who is the CEO of PJM, a company that manages the electricity grid in 13 mid-Atlantic states and Washington, the oversupply of electricity has forced prices into the negative range. The result: some customers are paid to use electricity."
Plug-in electric cars: New technology, familiar feel | Green Tech - CNET News
Plug-in electric cars: New technology, familiar feel | Green Tech - CNET News: "In the past few weeks, I've had an opportunity to experience the cutting edge in plug-in electric vehicle technology. In some cases, you'd think you're just driving a regular car.
The bulk of production plug-in electric vehicles available now are either utility trucks, small cars that top out at 25 miles per hour, or the pricey Tesla Roadster sports car. Now automakers are building plug-in sedans and SUVs with lithium ion batteries designed for the mass market.
Judging from the cars I've driven, automakers are trying to strike a balance between enticing consumers with new technology but not asking them to make sacrifices. So even though electrification is shaking up the auto industry, the biggest learning curve for owners may be around fueling rather than driving. And if the goal is to make plug-ins mainstream, that's probably a good thing.
Consider the electric Ford Focus which is due out in 2011. It runs entirely on batteries for a range of about 100 miles and will be manufactured side-by-side with the gasoline edition.
During my drive two weeks ago, I was eager to feel the acceleration. Vehicles that run off electric motors have 'instant torque,' which means you get the car's top acceleration at all speeds. The Focus was indeed zippy and responsive, but when I asked if it was better than the gasoline Focus, Ford's director of global electrification Nancy Gioia told me that it'd be the same--on purpose."
The bulk of production plug-in electric vehicles available now are either utility trucks, small cars that top out at 25 miles per hour, or the pricey Tesla Roadster sports car. Now automakers are building plug-in sedans and SUVs with lithium ion batteries designed for the mass market.
Judging from the cars I've driven, automakers are trying to strike a balance between enticing consumers with new technology but not asking them to make sacrifices. So even though electrification is shaking up the auto industry, the biggest learning curve for owners may be around fueling rather than driving. And if the goal is to make plug-ins mainstream, that's probably a good thing.
Consider the electric Ford Focus which is due out in 2011. It runs entirely on batteries for a range of about 100 miles and will be manufactured side-by-side with the gasoline edition.
During my drive two weeks ago, I was eager to feel the acceleration. Vehicles that run off electric motors have 'instant torque,' which means you get the car's top acceleration at all speeds. The Focus was indeed zippy and responsive, but when I asked if it was better than the gasoline Focus, Ford's director of global electrification Nancy Gioia told me that it'd be the same--on purpose."
Waiting in the Wings, Rechargeable Zinc Batteries | Green Energy News
Waiting in the Wings, Rechargeable Zinc Batteries | Green Energy News: "If it ain’t cheap it can’t compete. That coarse sentence should be the motto of every company wishing to replace oil with something else.
Anyone who thinks oil is going away soon is mistaken. Government (ours in particular) doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to demand a significant cut in consumption, like upping the fuel economy standard to 100 mpg.
Oil isn’t running out either, but oil is getting more and more difficult to find and retrieve. (BP announced a giant Gulf of Mexico find this week – at 35000 feet, one of the deepest wells drilled to date, illustrates this fact.)
Oil companies, too, are drooling over the prospect of drilling at the North Pole. If that happens you can bet that oil companies hope to eventually weaken the resolve of Antarctic’s managing governments to allow for drilling in the now-pristine continent. There’s no reason to think that there isn’t any oil there. Every other continent has oil, why shouldn’t Antarctica?
Oil will disappear as a basis for transportation fuel when something comes along that offers the same basic features: power-packed, cheap, stored energy that’s easy to handle and quick to refuel with."
Anyone who thinks oil is going away soon is mistaken. Government (ours in particular) doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to demand a significant cut in consumption, like upping the fuel economy standard to 100 mpg.
Oil isn’t running out either, but oil is getting more and more difficult to find and retrieve. (BP announced a giant Gulf of Mexico find this week – at 35000 feet, one of the deepest wells drilled to date, illustrates this fact.)
Oil companies, too, are drooling over the prospect of drilling at the North Pole. If that happens you can bet that oil companies hope to eventually weaken the resolve of Antarctic’s managing governments to allow for drilling in the now-pristine continent. There’s no reason to think that there isn’t any oil there. Every other continent has oil, why shouldn’t Antarctica?
Oil will disappear as a basis for transportation fuel when something comes along that offers the same basic features: power-packed, cheap, stored energy that’s easy to handle and quick to refuel with."
Metal Fuels on My Mind | Green Energy News
Metal Fuels on My Mind | Green Energy News: "For example, the theoretical energy density of a Zinc-air battery (1370 Watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg)) is significantly higher than average commercial Li-ion batteries (about 200 Wh/kg). Although previously relegated to hearing aid batteries, recent advances, including those provided by QSI, have enabled new applications for metal-air, such as portable electronic devices and light electric vehicles."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)